When
Eman el-Obeidy materialized in the breakfast room of the Rixos Hotel in
Tripoli, Libya, the story she told shocked the world. The 29-year-old
woman, a law graduate, claimed to have been held and raped by 15 members
of leader Muammar Qaddafi's forces after being stopped at a checkpoint.
The bruises on her face, the blood on her thighs, and the wails issuing
from her throat made it clear that something bad had happened. Any
doubt that remained was dispelled by the swift, vicious reaction of the
security forces in the hotel (including many who had been posing as
hotel waitstaff -- no, they were not just innocently pouring coffee and
busing tables for the press corps each morning), who dragged her out of
the reach of the stunned journalists and shoved her in a waiting car.

While
el-Obeidy's courage was exceptional, her experience may not be. In the
two months since her story broke, scattered reports have emerged of rape
by Qaddafi's forces in Misrata and elsewhere around the country, often
recounted by medical workers. Chilling details -- reports of condoms and
sexual performance enhancers found in the pockets of captured soldiers,
for example -- have prompted International Criminal Court Special
Prosecutor Luis-Moreno Ocampo to liken Viagra to a "machete," that
low-tech weapon used to such terrible effect during the Rwandan
genocide. In April, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice told a private gathering
of diplomats that the U.S. believed Qaddafi's military was handing out
Viagra pills to troops "so they go out and rape," as Rice reportedly put
it. Last week, Ocampo told CNN that he plans to launch an investigation into these accounts.

Is anyone surprised? Since ancient times (think of Nicholas Poussin's painting, "The Rape of the Sabine Women,"
which depicts the fabled 8th-century BC episode in which Rome's first
generation of men abducted women from the neighboring region), men
locked in combat have often viewed the other side's women as part of the
spoils: war booty, so to speak. A few examples, among many:
the Rape of Nanking; World War II, during which American GIs, Germans,
and Russians all took their liberties; the Bangladeshi War of
Independence, in which an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 women were raped
in nine months; Vietnam, where South Vietnamese and Americans were
widely known to rape; Peru, Guatemala and El Salvador during the 1980s;
the horrifying rape camps of Bosnia and Herzegovina; the nightmarish stories and statistics
from conflicts all over Africa, and even American servicewomen's
reports of assaults by their male colleagues. Again, is anyone
surprised?

As the Nobel Women's Initiative notes,
sexual violence in conflict "takes place in every region of the world ...
reasons for [its] use vary from region to region and conflict to
conflict." But that doesn't mean everyone's raping. In fact, a growing
body of scholarly research on sexual violence in conflict suggests that
it is decidedly not inevitable, making it all the more imperative to take action against it. (Incidentally, the raping of hotel staff by powerful, wealthy guests is not inevitable either.)

"The
fact that this particular subset of the population, which shares a
particular social and political profile, is targeted more often than
other groups, suggests that it is not the case that soldiers are
randomly and opportunistically raping anyone they encounter," she said.
"For this type of violence, they are targeting particular individuals
whom they deem to be opponents of the state."

It's important to
remember, she says, that across conflicts, there is "a huge variation"
in who rapes, who is raped, and why. "All of that complexity suggests
that this is not just an inevitable consequence of war."

In her
work on sexual violence in civil wars over the past three decades, Dara
Kay Cohen, Assistant Professor at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs
at the University of Minnesota, has identified several factors that
increase the likelihood that widespread rape will occur in a given
conflict, including one unexpected one: the method of recruitment.
Forcibly recruited men, she argues, meld into a cohesive unit through
gang rape, a process she calls "combatant socialization." A risky,
time-consuming, and inefficient practice (as opposed to swiftly lopping
off someone's head), gang-rape, she writes, "creates loyalty and esteem
from ... initial circumstances of fear and mistrust."

In other
words, strange men thrown together in an impromptu fighting force use it
as an unspoken means to build team spirit. The public, performative
nature of gang rape carries a different message ("We're all in this
together") than an individual rape perpetrated in private ("I'm doing
this right now because a breakdown of law and order means I can get away
with it.")

Examining data from all 86 civil conflicts from 1980
to 2009, Cohen found that the presence of two of the most commonly
accepted explanations for mass rape -- a culture of gender inequality
and ethnic tensions -- do not predict its occurrence. Instead, state
collapse and the aforementioned need for bonding between combatants are
more reliable indicators.

Her interpretation tracks with statements from captured pro-Qaddafi Libyan soldiers, who have claimed they were forced to rape
by their commanding officers. "We felt scared, but when we refused to
rape, they started to beat us," one 17-year-old soldier told the BBC. It
was his first sexual encounter, he said. A Libyan soldier who was
captured in Zintan as part of a group of loyalist fighters, which
included men from Chad and Sudan, told Al Jazeera English
that army troops "Were given orders no human being can accept. We were
told that any house we entered was ours, any vehicle we wanted was ours,
any girl we found, we could rape. Everything was for us." He also
mentioned Viagra.

The international rights group Human Rights
Watch says it has not yet been able to confirm these reports. But
women's rights researcher Nadya Khalife, a specialist in the region with
Human Rights Watch, said she "definitely believes there are cases out
there." Indeed, el-Obeidy also told reporters that a 16-year-old girl suffered a similar assault
alongside her. This lack of direct testimony, el-Obeidy excepted, is
perhaps one reason why most American news outlets have been hesitant to
report aggressively on this subject.

The process of documenting
these attacks will be slow-moving and delicate, said Nadje Al-Ali, a
professor of Gender Studies at the School of Oriental and African
Studies in London, who has researched sexual violence in Iraq. "I
definitely think that the honour issue and the social stigma attached to
rape is a big issue in terms of preventing women from coming forward,"
she said. "But then there is also the possibility that the soldiers are
only boasting and are trying to hurt the rebel men this way."

As
Leiby notes, the social stigma and the feelings of shame that come from
being raped are not unique to Arab or Muslim societies, although
attitudes about female purity are deeply rooted in Libya. But
el-Obeidy's stunning bravery may have inspired some to discard the
outdated views that hold women responsible for the honor of her family
or tribe . Speaking from the safety of exile in Doha, Qatar, she told CNN that she has experienced an immense outpouring of support.

"In
the past an Arab women that goes through what I gone through is
something shameful but now our society has changed and now everyone
feels with me and shows me love."

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

The new version of Apple’s signature media software is a mess. What are people with large MP3 libraries to do?

When the developer Erik Kemp designed the first metadata system for MP3s in 1996, he provided only three options for attaching text to the music. Every audio file could be labeled with only an artist, song name, and album title.

Kemp’s system has since been augmented and improved upon, but never replaced. Which makes sense: Like the web itself, his schema was shipped, good enough,and an improvement on the vacuum which preceded it. Those three big tags, as they’re called, work well with pop and rock written between 1960 and 1995. This didn’t prevent rampant mislabeling in the early days of the web, though, as anyone who remembers Napster can tell you. His system stumbles even more, though, when it needs to capture hip hop’s tradition of guest MCs or jazz’s vibrant culture of studio musicianship.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A leading neuroscientist who has spent decades studying creativity shares her research on where genius comes from, whether it is dependent on high IQ—and why it is so often accompanied by mental illness.

As a psychiatrist and neuroscientist who studies creativity, I’ve had the pleasure of working with many gifted and high-profile subjects over the years, but Kurt Vonnegut—dear, funny, eccentric, lovable, tormented Kurt Vonnegut—will always be one of my favorites. Kurt was a faculty member at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop in the 1960s, and participated in the first big study I did as a member of the university’s psychiatry department. I was examining the anecdotal link between creativity and mental illness, and Kurt was an excellent case study.

He was intermittently depressed, but that was only the beginning. His mother had suffered from depression and committed suicide on Mother’s Day, when Kurt was 21 and home on military leave during World War II. His son, Mark, was originally diagnosed with schizophrenia but may actually have bipolar disorder. (Mark, who is a practicing physician, recounts his experiences in two books, The Eden Express and Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So, in which he reveals that many family members struggled with psychiatric problems. “My mother, my cousins, and my sisters weren’t doing so great,” he writes. “We had eating disorders, co-dependency, outstanding warrants, drug and alcohol problems, dating and employment problems, and other ‘issues.’ ”)

Jim Gilmore joins the race, and the Republican field jockeys for spots in the August 6 debate in Cleveland.

After decades as the butt of countless jokes, it’s Cleveland’s turn to laugh: Seldom have so many powerful people been so desperate to get to the Forest City. There’s one week until the Republican Party’s first primary debate of the cycle on August 6, and now there’s a mad dash to get into the top 10 and qualify for the main event.

With former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore filing papers to run for president on July 29, there are now 17 “major” candidates vying for the GOP nomination, though that’s an awfully imprecise descriptor. It takes in candidates with lengthy experience and a good chance at the White House, like Scott Walker and Jeb Bush; at least one person who is polling well but is manifestly unserious, namely Donald Trump; and people with long experience but no chance at the White House, like Gilmore. Yet it also excludes other people with long experience but no chance at the White House, such as former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson.